The Social Context of Responses to Injustice: Considering the Indirect and Direct Effects of Group-Level Factors

Whether individuals evaluate a distribution of outcomes to be unfair and how they respond to it depends upon the social context and their perceptions of why the objective injustice occurred. Here we examine a general feature of the situation that highlights what is often overlooked in distributive justice research: the impact of the group. We conceptualize such impact in terms of the group value model of procedural justice (Lind and Tyler, 1988) and in terms of collective sources of legitimacy (Walker and Zelditch, 1993). The former highlights how the extent to which one feels valued by the group may enhance perceptions of distributive justice (net of actual outcomes) and thus ameliorate the impetus to respond to objective injustice. The latter considers how the dynamics of group influence may reduce the propensity to respond behaviorally to perceived injustice. Our analysis shows how procedural justice and legitimacy (in the forms of authorization and endorsement) may affect attributions in a work setting, and, in turn, influence individuals' justice perceptions and reactions. By combining these elements, we chart for the first time the relative impact of two factors representing elements of the group on an individual's evaluation of and response to distributive injustice.     

The talk of women friends

The talk of women friends has, for a variety of reasons, received little serious attention. We review (1) the sources of prejudice against this topic, (2) the dimensions of social context that shape women's friendships, and (3) the major differences between male friendships and female friendships. On the basis of prior research and an interview study, we propose that talk is central to close friendships between women. Our interview data reveal a broad range of conversational topics among women friends. The women we interviewed report that talk with their close friends creates a mosaic of noncritical listening, mutual support, enhancement of self-worth, relationship exclusiveness, and personal growth and self-discovery. We conclude by addressing issues pertaining to research methodology, to cross-cultural and sub-cultural differences, and to the politics of female friendship.     

Consistency of adolescents' self-report of sexual behavior in a longitudinal study

This study examines three issues relevant to adolescent self-reported sexual behavior: the extent to which adolescents rescind reports of sexual intercourse, changes in reporting of lifetime sexual intercourse, and changes in reported age at first sexual intercourse. Data come from a three-year longitudinal study of health-compromising behaviors among a cohort a 758 rural adolescents. Students completed a self-administered questionnaire on health behaviors annually in eighth, ninth, and tenth grades. Findings show that 88.8% of students in eighth grade and 94.3% in ninth grade who reported having had sexual intercourse gave the same answer in a subsequent year. Approximately 15% of students reported fewer numbers of lifetime sexual intercourse experiences in tenth grade than they did in ninth grade. Age at first sexual intercourse was reported inconsistently by 67% of the students. Inconsistency rates differed by racial-gender groups, question sensitivity, and prior sexual experience.Received Ph.D. from Johns Hopkins University. Research interests include adolescent health and early adolescent development.Received Ph.D. from Johns Hopkins University. Research interests include personality, stress, and coping.Received Ph.D. from University of Chicago. Research interests include adolescent delinquency and substance use.Received Dr. P.H. from Johns Hopkins University. Research interests include rural adolescents and international health issues.Received Ph.D. from Johns Hopkins University. Research interests include adolescent sexuality and contraceptive decision making.     

Public participation in decision making: A three-step procedure

This article introduces a novel model of public particpation in political decisions. Structured in three consecutive steps, the model is based on the view that stakeholders, experts, and citizens should each contribute to the planning effort their particular expertise and experience. Stakeholders are valuable resources for eliciting concerns and developing evaluative criteria since their interests are at stake and they have already made attempts to structure and approach the issue. Experts are necessary to provide the data base and the functional relationships between options and impacts. Citizens are the potential victims and benefactors of proposed planning measures; they are the best judges to evaluate the different options available on the basis of the concerns and impacts revealed through the other two groups. The three-step model has been developed and frequently applied as a planning tool in West Germany. We compare this experience with the model's first application in the United States, and conclude that the three-step procedure offers a limited, but promising future for democratizing policy making in the United States.